Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10633 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State by learned AGA is taken on record.
Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant along with learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Further submission is that applicant has not committed the crime as alleged. Further submission is that there is variation in the statement of victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that both the applicant and victim are minor. Further submission is that prosecution does not find support from medical evidence as no mark of external injury has been found on person of the victim. Further submission is that first informant in his counter affidavit has admitted that no such incident has taken place and F.I.R. was lodged on account of misunderstanding only, as both applicant and victim girl had been caught talking together. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 13.08.2017 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that victim, a minor girl has supported the prosecution under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and her version is supported with medical evidence also. He further submitted that there is no reason of false implication.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the age as well as statement of victim in which she has supported the prosecution and that prosecution version is supported with medical evidence also, I do not find it to be a case of bail.
The bail application of applicant Rajan in Case Crime No. 648 of 2017, under sections 376, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purposes of bail only and the court concerned shall decide the trial strictly on merit without being influenced by any such observation.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the Court concerned will conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible preferably within six months, if possible.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 /Bhanu